April 5, 2010
Ponente: Carpio Morales, J.
FACTS:
·
In 1992, Juan Taroy was hired by Genesis
Transport Service, Inc. as driver on commission basis at 9% of the gross
revenue per trip. In 2002, he was, after due notice and hearing, terminated
from employment after an accident on April 20, 2002 where he was deemed to have
been driving recklessly.
·
Taroy filed a complain for illegal dismissal
and payment of service incentive leave pay, claiming that he was singled out
for termination because of his union activities, other drivers who had met
accidents not having been dismissed from employment. He later amended his
complaint to implead his Unyon ng Malayang Manggagawa ng Genesis Transport (the
union) as complainant and add as grounds of his cause of action unfair labor
practice (ULP), reimbursement of illegal deductions on tollgate fees, and
payment of service incentive leave pay.
·
On the claim of illegal wage deduction: Taroy
alleged that in 1997, Genesis Transport Service started deducting from his
weekly earnings an amount ranging from P160 to P900 representing toll fees,
without his consent and written authorization as required under Article 113 of
the Labor Code and contrary to company practice; and that deductions were also
taken from the bus conductors' earnings, thus resulting in double deduction.
·
Genesis Transport Service's defenses: (a)
Taroy was not illegally dismissed; he was afforded due process as evidenced by
his preventive suspension, the directive for him to explain in writing his
involvement in the April 20, 2002 accident, and the conduct of a hearing; (b)
there was no evidence to prove that Taroy's dismissal was due to his union
membership and/or activities; and (c) the deduction of tollgate fees from the
gross earnings of drivers is an accepted and long-standing practice in the
transportation industry.
·
The Labor Arbiter ruled that Taroy was not
illegally dismissed and that he was not entitled to service incentive leave pay
since he was a field personnel paid on commission basis. However, the LA ruled
that Taroy was entitled to be refunded the sum of tollgate fees deducted from
him. According to the LA, if as contended by Genesis Transport, tollgate fees
form part of overhead expenses, why were not expenses for fuel and maintenance
also charged to overhead expenses? The Labor Arbiter thus concluded that it
would appear that the tollgate fees are deducted from the gross revenues and
not from the salaries of drivers and conductors, but certainly the deduction
thereof diminishes the take home pay of the employees.
·
Both parties appealed to the NLRC, with Taroy
raising his claim of illegal suspension for the first time. He claimed that the
30-day suspension period was supposed to end on May 20, 2002, but he only
received his termination letter on June 4, 2002. The NLRC dismissed the claim
of illegal suspension, but otherwise affirmed the LA's ruling with minor
modification.
·
Upon appeal before the CA, the appellate court
held that Genesis Transport violated Taroy's statutory right to due process
when he was preventively suspended for more than thirty (30) days, in violation
of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code. As such, the CA
held that Taroy was entitled to the award of nominal damages. Otherwise, the CA
affirmed the NLRC's ruling ordering Genesis Transport to refund Taroy the
underpayment. Hence, the instant petition.
RULING:
Is Taroy
entitled to refund? – YES.
·
The Court held that it cannot take judicial
notice of Genesis Transport's claim that the deduction of tollgate fees from
the gross earnings of drivers is an accepted and long-standing practice in the
transportation industry. For the Court to take judicial notice, three material
requisites must concur: (1) the matter must be one of common and general
knowledge; (2) it must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or
uncertain; and (3) it must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction
of the court. None of these was established in the present case.
·
Albeit the amounts representing tollgate fees
were deducted from gross revenues and not directly from Taroy's commissions,
the labor tribunal and the appellate court correctly held that the withholding
of those amounts reduced the amount from which Taroy's 9% commission would be
computed. Such a computation marks a change in the method of payment of wages,
resulting in a diminution of Taroy's wages in violation of Article 113
vis-a-vis Article 100 of the Labor Code, as amended. Without Taroy's written
consent or authorization, the deduction is considered illegal.
·
Genesis Transport's other defense that the
favorable rulings it got from the NLRC on cases with the same issue (viz: UMMGT v. Genesis Transport Service,
Inc.; Reyes v. Genesis Transport Service, Inc.; and Santos v. Genesis Transport Service, Inc.) constitute res judicata and must be similarly
applied to the present case is mistaken. Absent proof that the NLRC cases cited
have attained finality, the Court may not consider them to constitute res judicata on Taroy's claim for
refund.
Was Taroy
deprived of due process? – NO.
·
Taroy raised the claim of the illegality of
his preventive suspension for the first time upon his appeal before the NLRC.
The well-settled rule, which also applies in labor cases, is that issues not
raised below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
·
But even if said claim were part of the
original complaint, the Court held that it still couldn't rule in favor of
Taroy. In the present case, Genesis Transport had until May 20, 2002 to act on
Taroy's case. It did by terminating him through a notice dated May 10, 2002.
Therefore, the 30-day requirement was not violated even if the termination
notice was received only on June 4, 2002, absent any showing that the delayed
service of the notice on Taroy was attributable to Genesis Transport.